Thank goodness that the people of Dancing with the Stars were smart enough to finally "pick" a "non-Deaf" star, Lou Ferrigno (who is famous for playing the big, green hulking mutant in a 1970s The Incredible Hulk tv series), for a shot at the dance shootout. And, if officially picked, we'll see whether his feet matches his muscles, or perhaps his brain, in terms of dexterity, grace, and, without stumbling flat on his face, too. The last deaf person on Dancing with the Stars was in fact a Deaf person named Marlee Matlin who signed her way throughout the show but ultimately eliminated from the competition.
Now, the table has turned. We will have Lou Ferrigno who represents the majority of deaf people who do not know or use sign language to communicate but rather use oral/aural methods to communicate with the help of their hearing aids or cochlear implants in their everyday lives. Lou is a role model and an inspiration to the hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaf and hard of hearing kids who will get a chance to watch this "Deafless" guy dance (or stumble) his way across the screen. So the question is this. How light is Lou's feet? Well, check out Lou's 2007 audition clip where he didn't make the cut the first time around and probably enough to make you wince watching it, I did (sorry Lou). Just don't bad mouth since Lou is also a reserve Deputy Sheriff who was sworn in back in 2006.
Lots of hip swiveling with his white t-shirt and jeans along with fading in and out screen shots. Hmmm, 50s type dancing? Not really impressed. Probably the same feelings as the producers of the show who saw Lou's clip. But who knows how he'll fare this time around (I'm assuming his recent audition clip was much better than the one in 2007?) once he gets a professional dancer to teach him how to really dance. We might be in for a surprise. At least hopefully he'll go a lot longer than Marlee before getting eliminated.
Ok, folks. Calm down now. You can stop hyperventilating.
Geez.
UPDATE: Apparently last week on Good Morning America a list of names was read on those who were officially selected by DWTS Tom Bergeron. And the name Lou Ferrigno wasn't on that list. Lou's mad, or maybe was more surprised than mad but certainly his wife, Carla, is mad after whipping Lou into shape and have him lose 25lbs in bodyweight.
Here's the full list of "stars" you'll see during the three-day premiere of Dancing With the Stars, kicking off Sept. 21 at 8 p.m. on ABC...
Kathy Ireland, 46, model Macy Gray, 41, singer Melissa Joan Hart, 33, actress Mya, 29, singer Ashley Hamilton, 34, actor-comedian Michael Irvin, 43, football player Mark Dacascos, 45, actor and martial artist Donny Osmond, 51, entertainer Kelly Osbourne, 24, singer Debi Mazar, 45, actress Chuck Liddell, 39, UFC fighter Natalie Coughlin, 26, swimmer Joanna Krupa, 30, model Louie Vito, 21, snowboarder Aaron Carter, 21, singer Tom DeLay, 62, former House majority leader
I suppose they went for Chuck Liddel, a widely popular and well known UFC fighter, instead of the bigger (now slimmer) Lou Ferrigno? Who knows what the DWTS officials were thinking, especially picking a politician, Tom Delay, who is not even considered a "star" but more of like a very well known public servant whose only fame was getting kicked out of the House majority leader position.
Will Lou try again? No, not according to Carla and the fact that DWTS never had the class to inform him or his manager beforehand.
His manager and wife Carla told RadarOnline.com:
"They never even had the class to give Lou a call and tell him that he was not going to be chosen - this is the second time they haven't selected him but it will be the last."
"We couldn't believe some of the people they picked, and Lou was more surprised than upset that he wasn't chosen because we know he would have been great. "I mean, Tom Delay, a corrupt politician, a skateboarder [Louie Vito] who nobody has ever heard of, and what exactly has Ashley Hamilton ever done?"
Indeed. A strange list of "stars." But don't worry folks, Lou is still a role model for millions of deaf and hard of hearing kids to look up to.
I've heard about it but didn't think much of it until I sent a Private Message (PM) to another Alldeaf member. And then I saw it. The returned PM message back to me I noticed the one word I used. I was replaced with a long ugly line of asterisks instead. My original message out got censored! How could this be? And then I tried at first a short list of words (see screen capture) to see what would happen. All done in the name of research only involving our privacy.
After that quick experiment I tried a long list of words based on discussions with a few people. Several of words in the list ended up as "flagged" words and were replaced with asterisks. Incredible!
There is no justification to do this sort of invasion of privacy on a regular basis. Even under a "spamming rule" it doesn't apply to PMs having a friendly conversation mentioning another deaf run forum site. If the receiver of PM messages feels that he or she has a spammed PM then simply forward the offending PM to one of the moderator and ask for help there. Censoring other people's Private Message is good way to ruin their trust. How many other unknown flagged words are there in AD's list of "offending" and "offensive" words are there? No one knows except the moderators.
Here's an interesting question. How come only four forums were censored but not the other three such as Deafchat ("temporarily closed" like...for long time but you can see the archived section), Deafonline2 (or Deafonline), and Deafnotes? Well? Oh, fer crying out loud, don't give me the spamming justification when one can forward the offending PM to the proper moderator who can easily address that rather than resort to flagging "questionable" words in the first place. Typing in the word n***er and seeing it get censored on the receiving end in a PRIVATE message (PM) isn't about spamming, is it? No. But an outright invasion of AD members' privacy, no matter how vulgar the PM might be between two consenting adults.
As I continue to learn about other deaf run forums and what moderators have done in the past I found out that at least one member was banned when one of the moderators actually used that member's PM (flagged words or otherwise) and subsequently banned him/her based on what was said in his/her PMs. A fact or a bit of truth stretched some? How much power do these moderators have anyways regarding PMs? I know that PMs cannot be read by a 2nd party unless they know the password but what do I know? How people got banned because of their PMs with the flagged words were justification in banning that member? I don't know but I suspect that was back during the earlier days when many forums were up and running and competition was fierce to retain members. But regardless of what happened in the past there shouldn't be any excuse to remotely censor words for fear of spamming. Time to grow up and be more responsible and conscious on the privacy issue. As Dale said, who is the owner and moderator of Deafreedom, about PM,
Anyway, PM's and Emails are sacred around here, I wouldn't read 'em.
And, no, I'm not trying to advertise Dale's Deafreedom site but to show a voice of reason, common sense and sanity knowing what's right and wrong when it comes to privacy issues and moderating. Invading members' PMs is good way to lose their trusts.
Remember, this is a Private Email. "P" means private. Not censorship. Or looky loos into emails. Things like that. It's either a private message or not. Otherwise it'd be an Orwellian or Big Brother thing going under your radar without knowing exactly what are moderators are doing in those forums behind that screen of theirs. Have they peeked in the past? I wonder. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Stay tuned, I have more including wacky excuses for person to be banned or why messages were censored. Politically motivated or just a bad moderator?
Rush Limbaugh, who is deaf by the way, is continuing with his successful weight loss program which stands at 82lbs after hearing it on the radio recetly Friday a few days ago (link will expire in a few days).
....my weight loss, which is now 82 pounds. I started on March 9th. This is August 14th. My weight loss is now 82 pounds...
That'd be losing on average 1/2 lb of bodyweight a day. Not bad. Quite safe. And he follows highly nutritious meals prepared for him at 1500 calories a day under a "Quick Weight Loss" program. He looks much better in his ditto-cam nowadays and not so much looking overly rotund.
Here's a dinner description that Rush highlighted on Friday:
Last night when dinner was placed before me, I said, "This can't be right. There's too much here." The plate was filled with seven ounces of chicken, chicken breast cut in half, and on the top of it was a casserole type of broccoli, a little rice, some cottage cheese in there, and a thickening agent, I don't even know what it was, and a cup of asparagus that looked like the whole package from the grocery store. And then there was the frozen strawberry daiquiri protein shake, which is, by the time you drink it, about 20 ounces. I looked at that and said, "This can't be." I almost called Kathryn, said, "Kathryn, this is not right, this is too much food." I've thought that I can't tell you how many times that I've sat down to eat on this diet. It's amazing. The people who have not done it and the people who don't know what it is are telling you more about how it can't work and doesn't work than the guy who has done it! The arrogance of these people is just amazing.
Arrogance? How about prejudiced, too, simply because he's a conservative Republican? Unreal. And there were articles after articles demonizing Limbaugh for losing 1/2lb a day or 15lbs a month but spun it as if he was losing weight dangerously to imply, unrealistically, that Rush is in danger of doing that. Unreal. And they call themselves "doctors."
I went over to Alldeaf to start a topic to congratulate Rush Limbaugh on his weight loss success with kudos. The only thing I got was veiled demonizations from commenters against Rush rather than to give him any kudos. That tells alot of how they make this into a political reason not to praise and give kudos to Rush. In short, this was about politics when it shouldn't have been about politics but about acknowledging and giving well deserved kudos. Kind of funny when commenters attempt to bob and weave with their responses to make sure they don't give any semblance of kudos to Rush Limbaugh. Funny, but sad at the same time, too. It's people like Rush Limbaugh who inspire others to lose weight and that alone speaks volume. Avoiding kudos also speaks volume, doubly so.
Rush didn't take stimulants (ie. diet pills). No drugs. Instead he has a planned eating program designed to learn how to portion your food intake while having a great and nutritious meal. And because of that, Rush was able to lose 82 lbs so far and inspired othersto continue with their own weight loss program.
CALLER: I'm calling because I've had similar success on a weight loss program very similar to your program.
RUSH: Not possible.
CALLER: (chuckling)
RUSH: The weight I've lost I haven't lost, according to the experts.
CALLER: I know. I heard that. I started out at 319; I lost 90 pounds.
RUSH: In what period of time?
CALLER: It took about a year.
RUSH: It took about a year.
CALLER: Uh-huh. And I looked online at the program you were using and I realized that the products were very similar to the ones I used. The protein supplements and things were very similar.
RUSH: Well, congratulations, that's great, 90 pounds, that's significant. I'm at 82 since March the 9th. But, you know, men lose weight faster --
CALLER: Exactly.
RUSH: -- than women do. They just do.
CALLER: And I had kind of slacked off and wasn't being as diligent and then when I saw what you were doing I got back on it and I lost five pounds the first week.
RUSH: Well, way to go! I'm happy to provide inspiration in yet another way.
CALLER: Thank you.
RUSH: You had a question. It says up here, "Do you still eat...?" What? What were you going to ask me?
CALLER: Oh, the screener was asking me if I go hungry, and I told him no. I don't go hungry at all. The food is very nutritious. It really teaches you the proper portions and you don't go hungry at all.
RUSH: I actually don't look at this as a diet anymore. I look at it -- you can call it portion control or whatever. It's just how to eat sensibly.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: I'll tell you a little something. We've had a blast out here this week and I've been going to dinner every night, and one night this week -- it's not because I overate or anything, but one night this week -- at the end of the night I felt like I used to feel when I weighed 290 after eating dinner.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: And I said, "I am never going through this again. This is never going to happen." It just took that one time.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: Really, I don't know what happened. I think it was just a combination. That was the night I pulled the all-nighter and so forth. But I'll tell you, this is the first diet -- quote, unquote, "diet" -- that I been on that I don't want to get off of.
CALLER: Well, I'm still on it.
RUSH: Other diets when I finally got to the goal I said, "All riiiiiiiight!"
CALLER: Exactly. That's what I did and then I started putting it back on.
RUSH: Yeah, well, that will happen. Yeah.
CALLER: I'm not going to do that.
RUSH: Well, congratulations, June. That's just great. I'm very proud of you.
CALLER: People can do it.
RUSH: People don't know how hard this is. They don't know how to stick with something and lose 90 pounds.
CALLER: It is hard but people can do it.
RUSH: Of course! Of course people can do it. People do it all the time but the experts say I haven't done it.
CALLER: I know. I heard that. (chuckling)
RUSH: It's just amazing. June, thanks for the call.
CALLER: Thank you. Bye.
RUSH: I appreciate it.
So, instead of using politics as an excuse to avoid kudos to anybody who loses weight in sound and sensible manner who took the time and planned effort deserves kudos no matter what their background in politics. People will try all kinds of justification to avoid any semblance of a kudos and will come up with their own lame, lame way to avoid it.
Sad to see that happen. So, congrats to Rush Limbaugh on his successful weight loss! The most famous radio personality in the United States who happens to be deaf and wears a cochlear implant.
Looking at it now I don't think what Obama said was an accident but a perfectly timed comment done on purpose "..all wee weed- up." Most likely as a way to somehow provoke a conversation on what he meant by "all wee weed-up." And so, I'm thinking weed as in marijuana. Why? Well, for one he did go down to Mexico in April to discuss the economic issue that has been vexing Mexico. Second thing I noticed in the news today is that Mexico has just now legalized marijuana (in small amount). And so I quickly went to the Library of Congress on pending bills and searched for anything that has to do with marijuana. Yup, sure enough. Here is it for 2009, it's called "Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009," H.R. 2493, sponsored by, who else, Barney Frank and introduced on June 18, 2009.
6/18/2009--Introduced. Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009 - Prohibits the imposition of any penalty under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use.
Deems the possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana as personal use (one ounce or less for a not-for-profit transfer between adults).
Allows the imposition of a civil penalty under the Controlled Substances Act for the public use of marijuana if such penalty does not exceed $100.
Mind you this is for small amount of marijuana possession for personal use only without penalty under Act of Congress. Which means this paves the way for states to pass similar bills so they can start the machination on getting those weeds into anxious and curious users. Not to mention a good way to bring in tax dollars, too. California is one state thinking about it as a way to generate cash for their cash strapped state back in February.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano will announce legislation on Monday to legalize marijuana and earn perhaps $1 billion annually by taxing it.
But this isn't all an accident (note the sarcasm in irony use of the word "accident" and "all wee weed-up") I think this whole thing timed and it wouldn't hurt Obama's image since he smoked pot while in high school as seen in Hawaii Punahou's yearbook photo. Even Mexico's recent legalization of marijuana is for small amount for personal use, too, though quite small by a factor 20 when compared to theHR 2943 bill with the limit at 100 grams or 80 joints worth.
The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams—the equivalent of about four joints.
From the looks of things, I don't think Obama's "..all wee weed-up" blurb was not an accident but a perfectly timed one (or rather a subconscious play that bubbled to the surface) to hopefully generate discussions on marijuana use in the United States. It isn't the same as "misunderestimated" but with Obama high on weed-upping most anything nowadays how could it hurt him now with a passage to make marijuana for personal use legal across the United States?
New ironic but actual word of the day/month/year/ that describes the current administration:
mulo.
According to the Real Academia Espagnola mulo has two meanings in Spanish. The first meaning is “mule” from Latin mulus. The second meaning of mulo is “a person characterized by strength and vigour”.
2. m. coloq. Persona fuerte y vigorosa. (Translated via Google translator: Strong and vigorous person.)
For some reason the two definitions certainly don’t mesh well together nowadays, does it? Just find it rather amusing to see the whole irony behind the word "mulo." Especially with the health care reform Trojan donkey. Go figure!
Heh heh.... my plan continues to work flawlessly! *rubs hands*
People are starting to conspire and bicker against each other over nonsense and boring issues! AGBell is winning! Cochlear implants on the rise with CI-borgs running the show. "Critical"(but worthless) bloggers continue to drop out. Cure for hearing loss is getting closer with each passing day with research for application of stem cells starting today. Enrollment continues to decline until soon no more. The dreaded death panel dies. Mandatory cures for babies born deaf is on its way. And finally your favorite genetically-modified monkey boy in an empty suit successfully evolved into a gun-totin-monkey-in-a-suit you do not want to mess with! Never bring a banana to a gun fight! *evil laugh* - Bwahahahhaaaa!
Not exactly sure what the Louisiana lawmakers were thinking to use some of the fines collected from violators of noise pollution to go to the Louisiana Commission for the Deaf. Does this even sound a bit patronizing?
LaFonta said his House Bill 55 banning exterior sound systems on most vehicles is designed to reduce noise pollution. Violators must be fined at least $500, with some of the money going to the Louisiana Commission for the Deaf.
$500 dollars a pop? Isn't that a bit excesssive? Was there ever a $500 speeding ticket? Maybe next time draft up a law that would fine graffiti violators and use some of the money to go to the commission for the blind, too? Or direct some of the funds to a starving artist program? How about making sure those funds go to someplace that's a bit more specific like set up a fund to help pay the costs for emergency assistence for deaf/hh people displaced by a hurricane instead? Since there were so many instances of communication confusion (or lack of communication) by those who are deaf and hard of hearing, it'd be a better use of the money for those emergency purposes. Or maybe direct the money into a special fund for those who can't afford hearing aids instead? Or maybe a cochlear implant fund?
Recently there's been a lot of finger pointing at Sarah's "Death Panels" comment calling her a hypocrite because while as Governor of Alaska she issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day” to be recognized on April 16. Supporters of this current health care reform bill were breathlessly calling out Palin's proclamation as the same thing as the "death panels" she brought up earlier and proceeded to call her a hypocrite and accusing her of "flip flopping." One funny thing when they said that. Are they acknowledging that Section 1233 of HR 3200 health bill does contain provisions governing that "death panels" do exist?
That'd be a losing argument.
When people cannot even see the vast and simple differences between this health care reform bill to that of Palin's proclamination to generate greater awareness and personal responsibility to plan for end-of-life care. Indeed, iron doors shut tight and while their deaf mind rusts.
There is this fatal flaw in reasoning on calling out Palin's "death panels" comment while calling her a hypocrite. How so? Let me count the ways.
First of all in the health care bill there is a passage (there was one but now dropped) to offer financial incentitives for the push on end-of-life care at the behest of the doctors involved just to save money and for doctors to make money during the process as well. A slippery slope issue right there.
From NPR where :Mr. Jay Sekulow (Chief Counsel, American Center for Law & Justice) explains what and how this bill works.
The problem here is the financial incentive for the entire bill is to reduce cost. That will end up either being one of two things: rationing of services or life care, end-of-life-care decisions based on economic motive, where the doctor becomes basically the advocate for the determination as to life end, which should really be a decision that the doctor's involved in, obviously, but with consultation with the family.
A second problem with this bill.
And also the idea that the government itself, the bureaucrats, or the government, the doctors will be reporting back to the government these results. I mean, it almost sounds like a commission sales approach, which is not what doctors need to be in the position of doing. This idea you report back: Were you successful in getting A, B, C and D.
And these are decisions that have medical implications, ethical implications, implications for people that have religious faith, for those that do, moral concerns. All of those are the totality of what takes place here. And this idea that you just simply give this to a government commission, who's then in consultation with the doctor, I think, is dangerous.
Mr. Jay Sekulow explains further how consultation works in this bill.
The entire program, under the Health Reform Bill, is monitored by a government panel. Who do you think came up with, for instance, what would be included in the consultation? If a consultation's going to take place, and if in fact it is going to be a reimbursable expense under the Medicaid, which I have no problem with, who made the determination of what goes in that consultation? The government did. The panel did. The medical experts.
Hence, the worry over a "death panels" (note the quotation marks) scenario where there'd be financial incentives to reduce cost and quality of care. A classic case of what a slippery slope would look like.
This bill is vastly different by night and day to that of Palin's statewide awareness message which was sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. Just a simple public awareness message to proclaim April 16 as "Health Care Decisions Day." Nothing insidous about the message and no where near the hypocrisy level either accusing her of promoting that same "death panels" for her own state.
Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.
Somebody's mad right now. But that doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet. The first obvious problem to this whole thing is that we don't have the money. We're already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from to pay for this boondoggle nationalization attempt over health care? It's better to work at the root of the problem first such using tort reforms as a leverage and lower costs at the same time instead of ramming a nationalized and socialized health care down everybody's throat at the expense of our economy and national security.
And lastly, well maybe not, there is this problem of Democrats who will try and somehow sneak in a provision that was dropped earlier back into the bill or somehow find a way to get around. Why? This. And then of course we need to heed what the dear One said his goals were:
"Remember, we are going to rebuild every school, bridge and road in the country. We will fix healthcare. We will restore the constitution, end illegal wars [and] reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses."
I'll say it out loud here for all to see. Somebody is misunderstanding the whole thing in a post which got off topic when I broached a subject about mulatto in a thread I started but it is no longer there. Thank goodness for Google cache. How kind it was for moderators to delete the whole thread, quietly, shhhh, without ever informing me or AD members rather than just delete posts that have the "offending" word instead. Either there's been a misunderstanding on their part or we have some very, very sensitive people out therewho hide under the race mantle. I think it's more like the latter tho'.
But you cannot and shall not call a president a mulatto in that forum. EVER! *stomps foot like an upset little boy*
How politically expedient. How...hypocritical. How...convenient.
Let me count the ways.
Recognize the common theme that liberals go by on nowadays? Put a joker face of Obama and you're called a racist. Or put on a Hitler face and you're a racist. Do not support health careand you're a racist. But a white SEIU union thug beat up a black guy captured in a YouTube video and suddenly liberals look the other way saying it wasn't a racist attack and nothing to do with race with a straight face even after the Gates-gate incident between a white cop and professor Gates, and a president that acted stupidly in all that fracas.
*sigh*
All this is really getting old and it's being done for political expedency or agenda driven purposes rather than debate in a dialogue that's meaningful and not worry about being called a "racist" at every turn. It's highly ironic that people use the color of a person's skin as an excuse to level racist charges. And to discuss race in a subcontext fashion using the word mulatto would have you charged as a racist in the attempt to "disrespect other members" in a discussion forum.
This defies logic. And people need to seriously lighten up. Like, dude man.
Because using the very word "mulatto" in a context of a race discussion might actually offend very sensitive people who claim the race mantle even though they're white. Maybe they think they count because they happen to have a friend, extended family, or a spouse of ethnic diversity?
How convenient. How intellectually dishonest.
Wait! Before you get into temper tantrum let me give you an example.
The joker president. Putting a joker face on a president isn't about race nor is it racist. Look here in the Google image section to compare and contrast.
Exhibit one on joker faces - Bush. Exhibit two on joker faces - Obama.
And you're telling me people who use a joker face on a president is a racist?
How convenient. The hypocrisy is just...dripping here.
Another compare and contrast example.
Look to Deafreedom discussion forum on the topic "Obama is a mulatto" (I had a topic thread discussion I started yesterday in AD "Famous Mulatto People" but that got removed....rather quickly....about celebs and well known people who are mulatto. Even the Google cache wasn't quick enough to capture that thread). I know I won't be at risk for banishment from DF or have my "Obama is a mulatto" thread removed just for discussing the mulatto topic and saying that Obama is a mulatto. And if DF members get into a tizzy and complain over the topic "Obama is a mulatto" need to take a chill pill. It's a fact. Obama is a mulatto. Even Mulatto.org says it with great pride to see the first mulatto president by describing him as a mulatto. Yet, could it be that the liberal white lily skinned people are the ones who are doing the complaining and retching over the word...mulatto? What are the odds that people will soon level a charge against DF by calling it a racist forum just because of a thread "Obama is a mulatto" got started?
Yet all this reminds me of a description "hearing impaired" in reference to people whose hearing is impaired and by using that word you'd likely be called an "audist" by some of the Deaf elites. Problem is, some of these people read way, way too much into these things. Same with mulatto. Thin skinned people are no fun. They just run to their mommies instead demand censorship or feign a bit of fake outrage as a matter of political correctness.
Hmmm...
Funny thing is I have mixed blood as well. Recently my uncle who is a genealogist nut worked on for years to gather information about his side of the family and was able to trace back to one our ancestor who is the sister of Pocahontas. Whoa! Found out last week when my mother came over to visit. I'm gonna ask my uncle to supply me his CD on his genealogy work. But I'm not the only one with mixed blood. My wife's blood is a little more "thicker" with North American Indian blood in her (her grandfather is 1/2 Indian). So, in a sense my wife is a mulatto. So am I but it's not that obvious with my strong Irish features and caucasian skin color. Even Obama's blood is 3% Irish. Though you won't see him celebrating on St. Patricks Day. But looking back at the whole Pocahontas discovery was a strange revelation since my Mom whose brother is my uncle helped me say the word "Pocahontas" when I was a little boy. I remember vividly that one. Since I am of mixed blood, or "mulatto" in a sense, then I can't be racist for discussing the mulatto topic in deaf/hh forums then?
Now, I'm sure Obama as a person and human being is a cool guy. Something that you can sit down and maybe have beer with him, and chat or play a good game of basketball with him. The problem is that he lacks proper judgement and experience on the politics of things. It's the combined qualification, experience and political knowledge I look for in a president. Not skin color which is why many people voted Obama for his "blackness." Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal and even Colin Powell are much better choices to be president than Obama. And that's just looking at their background, not the skin color. Just because I disagree with Obama's policy and direction does not make me a racist person. The articles or comments I write are not by its nature racist. So, please do not use the color of Obama's skin to be used as YOUR excuse to set your poltical correctness agenda and tone that are politically and conveniently expedient for you. Leveling the racist charge is the worst form of demogaugery around. Doing so shows obvious intellectual dishonesty in this whole charade while hiding under the race mantle. You, too, AllDeaf mods and the few who got their sensibilities challenged when I said that Obama is a mulatto by accusing me of being a racist, implicitly so. You dudes need to seriously chill, man.
Meanwhile, enjoy a video of me playing a 1908 piano piece called "Black and White Rag" by George Botsford. A well known and famous ragtime piece in an era when Scott Joplin was (and still is) the King of Ragtime. The picture at the top of my blog is Scott Joplin, the most famous black Ragtime composer. Heck, with me playing ragtime pieces I'd probably be called a racist. Maybe an "audist," too. But do enjoy one of my many favorite ragtime pieces, Black and White Rag. And if you like hearing me play ragtime piano then visit my Ragtime Piano blog.
UPDATE III:
Another update and clarification for those lurkers, you know who.
I was never informed of the change on the wording from "mulatto" to "bi-racial" as I was just recently informed but the thread is no longer there. Oooh, how brave. How convenient, too. Nor was I ever contacted about it beforehand. They made NO effort to contact me just to hear my side of the story since there's no way to get in to check any PMs. You want to talk about intellectual dishonesty while claiming to be "neutral"? There you go. There's a case load right there. At least Deafreedom.com mods never went the route of political correctness just to appease a few limp-wristed complainers who think that having "friends, families or spouses of diversity" earn them the equivalent race mantle. It's simply an example of pc for the sake of expediency. They shout "Fire!" when it's just a flashlight I'm shinning on rather than play the guessing game.
UPDATE II:
Manufactured outrage. Tho' this baby really is crying.
Go figure. Mulatto. Mulatto. Mulatto. If it was such a racist word why the use, especially in Mulatto.org - a site where mulattoes come together to discuss their mixed heritage? I suppose "hapas" (mixed Asian race) will be considered as an offensive word, too? The first happas U.S. president? The first hapas pro-golfer? That would be Tiger Woods. Get a grip folks. But what's interesting is the increased constituitional resilency seen in people with mixed heritage.
And, turning racist ideas of "hybrid degeneracy" on their head, Psychology Today magazine earlier this year featured studies finding that Eurasians were regarded as more attractive than whites or Asians and healthier because of their genetic diversity, associated with a lower incidence of some diseases.
So, AD get their wet panties in a wad over the term "mulatto" thinking it's a racist term. I suppose if I say that Obama has a lot of "mulo" in him you'd think I'm making a racist slur on him? Get real. The meaning of mulo in Spanish according to the Real Academia Espagnola is "a person characterized by strength and vigour".
For once, folks, stop with these knee jerk reactions thinking everything has a racist connotation when there is none to be had.
Deafless? What in the heck is that word? According to Barry in the video below it is in a sense opposite of what "Deafhood" is about. For those who are "deafless" see themselves as human beings first and not about a person's own hearing loss (i.e. deaf first or in this case Deaf first and everything else is last) and not be constrained by the word "deaf." Barry makes some good points and all done in a veiled tongue-in-check response to "Deafhood." In other words, don't get your wet panties into a wad.
Barry makes a salient point about Deafhood and Deaf, and mocks to a degree about audism as well. Barry proclaims at the end of the video that he chooses to be seen as "deafless" which means he sees himself as a human being first, and not about his hearing loss or deafness that describes him.
What Barry said was pretty much what said starting three years ago when I did four pieces (see here, here, here and here) on my own "invented" word, "Deafhoodism" where I made the point that I see myself simply as a human being who happens to have a hearing loss. My deafness does not solely define me, it's everything else combined that defines me. I don't subscribe to a club mentalilty based upon a condition. There are commonalities, yes, but to make it as a requirement to be a part of one? No.
What's funny was that bloggers actually used my newly "invented" word for awhile as you can see in this Google search. Now, it's Barry's turn that people are suddenly using the "deafless" word but only in the context, as it would seem, to elevate themselves above to "Deafhood" status by looking down on the word or the people who use it. Even though Barry's acceptance of the word "deafless" was seen as a bit of a tongue-in-check to all this but, correctly so, it's the point he's making behind all that word. We're simply human beings and we should see each as that and not about belonging to some club or see ourselves as a deaf person but a person who happens to have a hearing loss.
And, oh, about "Deafless in Seattle"? Ever see the movie "Sleepless in Seattle"? No connection between the two. Just thought I put that one out. By the way, don't take the "Dummies" cover page seriously. All done in tongue-in- cheek with a variety of meanings behind my illustrated graphic page.
Ok. Finally got around to do this fun ragtime piano piece called KK Ragtime. Go over to my Ragtime Piano blog and watch me play in a video clip. Yes. You gotta go over there. But I promise, you'll enjoy my ragtime piano piece.
Here's a deaf college student, Noah Logue, from a local college in St. Louis asks a Democrat at a Townhall meeting whether if he'll get punished under "Obamacare." The question was a potent one since under "Obamacare" special needs citizen may not qualify. In short, if ya a poor kwipple, deaf, mute, blind or whatever limiting conditions you may have, you may not qualify under "Obamacare" when it comes to rationing medicine.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...
Gee, what a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that some people do have hearts of gold! Oh, btw, Noah Logue speaks quite well for a guy with cochlear implants as some of you can tell. Though no need for him to sign in this situation. He did just dandy.
Here's the video.
Here's the note used by Noah at the meeting seen in the video.
CONCERNS FROM A VOTER WITH A DISABILITY McCASKILL TOWN HALL MEETING JULY 27, 2009
I am a young adult who is profoundly deaf with a cochlear implant, starting my second year of college in September.
I would not be able to hear anything without my implant, except maybe a jet engine.
With my cochlear implant, I can talk on the telephone, I can carry on oral conversations, and I can hear music. It has enriched my life tremendously.
Cochlear implant surgery is not inexpensive. Currently it costs between $50,000 and $60,000 per ear.
After this surgery it is important to receive the correct education afterward so the child can learn how to talk. It is expensive to educate a child who is deaf.
It is also expensive to provide services to a child who is deaf who is not oral. Interpreters are needed for them to talk to people who are hearing.
When my mother told me of the health bills being considered by the House and Senate, and how they impacted disabled people, I wanted people to know how that would impact me and how difficult it would be to succeed in life without the services I have received.
Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, who is involved in the wording of the House Bill said, “Medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…” “.
Does that include me? If medical decisions are being made by the government; not by my doctors, my parents, or me, I would be determined to be too expensive to receive the services I need to be able to navigate my way in the world.
This is a bad plan for those with special needs. Tell Senator McCaskill to vote NO.
In response to a question in a popular deaf/hh forum a question was asked what was your first language. I chimed in and said, "English, thank god!" And it's true with my background and upbringing I am quite thankful of the fact that my first language is the English language. Yet, a few forum members had a beef with my comment and proceeded to attack me for making a such benign comment. A sure sign of insecurity on their part. Suppose it would've been better for them to see me say instead, "English, omg, I wish it was never my first language!! I'm cursed!"
Look folks, if you're confident and happy with your language as your first language growing up then that's fine. I am truly thankful and grateful that my first language growing up has been the English language in the spoken, listening and written formats. I guess it is just a fact that some people are a wee tad bit too sensitive over my comment thanking the fact that my first language was (and still is) the English language in a deaf/hh forum.
Though more than a month away (52 days to go as of today) it wouldn't hurt to remind people of Matt Hamill's next fight on August 29 against Brandon "The Truth" Vera in the upcoming UFC 102 fight. Matt Hamill has steadily improved his game with an 8-2-0 record.
This will be a good time to go if you live in Oregon or Washington since the fight will take place at the Rose Garden Arena in Portland, Oregon (see map). Ticket costs anywhere from $50 to $600 dollars. There is an 8 tickets limit meaning that one can buy eight tickets at the same seating area for friends and families to stay together.
I plan on going but looks like I may be getting the upper seats. It's a good to go since I live about 20 miles away from Portland and this will be a good opportunity to go and watch, and meet up with Matt Hamill. If you are interested in joining with me, let me know and perhaps get adjoining seats for this event. And a chance to meet with Matt Hamill.
Also, a heads up. Look to my Kokonut Pundit blog for more upcoming news about Matt Hamill. I have done several interviews for my Kokonut Pundit blog with Matt in the past discussing his UFC quest. So, keep an eye out on this one folks.
There are certain aspects or components that I simply disagree when it comes to mandatory volunteer service. I see it simply as more detrimental than beneficial since it relies on education on emotions rather than an intellectual one.
For a start... (1) It is not a volunteer service, so do not call it as one. (2) Volunteering comes from the heart to serve and help where needed on his/her own time. (3) It is an obvious social engineering attempt by using "peer pressure" as a way to get students or people to feel guilty and that they must somehow comply and be "one of us." (4) School officials and educators have disagreed that by making "volunteering" mandatory do not make much sense or that it is seen as a backward step. (5) There is no spirit of volunteering taking place at all but rather something that is heaped upon instead. (6) This is about substiting reason with emotions with little intellectual value.
I'm not alone in this at all. John B. Egger, professor of economics at Towson University, recently wrote an article in Academic Questions that the “service learning” trend undermines a free society and subverts the university’s purpose of training the mind.
“By attempting to substitute emotions for reason, service-learning contravenes the purpose of liberal education while chipping away at students’ respect for the social order.”
In other words, this mandatory community service or mandatory voluneerism serves more of an indoctrination purposes than not.
As I said before, volunteering comes from the heart on his own initiative and time. Mandatory volunteer as a requirement does not come from the heart.
According to Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, who commented on the subject while a senior at Princeton University,
“this darker side of student volunteerism … can undermine young people’s respect for and interest in genuine volunteerism. … In their zeal to recruit Samaritans, colleges have attracted a great number of Pharisees.” Worse, Ramos-Mrosovsky documents cases of bad faith and out-and-out fraud on the part of students to game the service system. Examples include plagiarism, creating original projects to demonstrate leadership rather than participating in existing ones understood to be more beneficial to the needy, and taking credit for service actually performed by parents.
It's all about ideologies at work here and Gallaudet University is one of the many colleges and universities who are pimping this social agenda to new students under the guise of a "feel good" course requirement called "mandatory volunteering." Egger also wrote concerning his view of "good and evil" that this mandatory voluneeter business
“...suppresses and denigrates the individual in favor of a group or ‘society’ and views self-interest as a vice.”
In other words, it's all about peer pressure. And that mandatory community service is actually critical of “individualistic attitudes.” Something that we, as individuals, ought to be ashamed of. How ironic. That alone goes against the very idea of diversity and autonomous thinking. Social engineers are more interested in advancing their idea by using emotions where"charity is moral, but self-interested behavior that respects others’ rights is something for which one must atone." That is about how one shouldn't display individual selfishness but instead be selfless of oneself for the sake of many. These ongoing social engineerings are being done right under our noses.
Hey, I'm not that dumb to see the differences. Call it "voluntyranny." Call it as another form of "soft hazing" by doing something not out of the goodness of your heart but something done in order to earn those brownie points just to graduate. Now, suppose I "volunteer my time" by playing the piano for the public for free, does that count as a "community service" on my part? After all, my service would be free and that it is a source of free entertainment helping people enjoy and relieve stress and tension at the same time.
Community service? It can be done while as a volunteer or it can be used to punished those who violate the law where judges dole out community service requirements to offenders. Community service punishment is also seen as the ideal sentence for those who commit misdemeanor crimes must do 80 hours of community service.
Juvenile court Judge Christopher Estes sentenced Pleajhai Mervin, Kenngela Lockett and her brother Joshua to at-home probation and community service, but spared them any jail time. Ms. Mervin, then 15, and Ms. Lockett were charged with the misdemeanors while Joshua Lockett was charged with felony counts of threatening a public officer and making criminal threats. He also faced misdemeanor charges for disturbing the peace.
The youths must perform 80 hours of community service and undergo anger management classes, but according to Atty. Carl Douglas, their lawyer, they could be entangled in the legal system until they are 23-years-old. He doubts that will happen because the teens “are good children,” he told The Final Call.
Now, Gallaudet University has a "community service program requirement" for new freshmen where it requires them to do 80 hours of community service in order to graduate.
Understand first-hand obligation to contribute to the solution of societal problems.
Isn't one of societal problems also includes the forcing of a mandatory volunteer requirement on new undergraduate students in order for them to graduate?
The word "volunteer" means to do things on your own initiative and on your own time without anyone telling you when and what you must do in order to graduate from college? Volunteering comes from the heart when the person is ready to do so out of self-consciousness or realization. The words "community service program requirement" is simply an euphemism for mandatory volunteering requirement. The phrase "mandatory volunteerism" is an oxymoron. You cannot force people to volunteer. Mandatory volunteerism is the heart of Gallaudet's program could be seen as a stumbling block for those who want to graduate.
In a 2008 commentary letter about a North Carolina Senate bill that will add a community service requirement for graduation for almost every college in the state:
In 1999 and 2004 there were similar attempts on community service requirements at the University of California. Former system provost H.R.C. Greenwood reminded us that the university’s academic senate stated that "existing research on collegiate community service suggests that a graduation requirement impedes, rather than promotes, the fostering of an ethic of public service."
Indeed. I see that it does impedes the spirit of volunteering rather than promotes it.
So those of you thinking about going to Gallaudet University for the first time, maybe it's time to broaden your options first before deciding. It's time to develop your critical thinking skills on these matters.
UPDATE: See my recent blog, a continuation of this subject.
It's amazing. Really. Some people just have the inability to handle controversial subjects or commentaries (short of calling people names or slanderous innuendos) in discussion forums. I've never really participated much in AllDeaf until recently and decided to give it a serious whirl for the last few weeks. It was mostly in the area of politics or other sensitive issues. I knew going in that it is the Land of the Liberals (hint) and I was expected to get labeled fairly quickly ranging from getting called a bigot, racist, homophobic and even sexist. All laughable charges. I guess it goes with the territory when it comes to discussion forums of wide ranging opinions.
Then soon it really got amusing.
Some didn't know how to deal with my comments or how to respond to my questions, the one liners started to flow like fine wine (or would that be whine?) and the moderators started to wag their fingers and complaining how hard it was to "baby sit" participants of AD. It was almost the same kind of responses in other similar Deaf managed forums. All except for one, Deafreedom, a deaf managed forum. It is a shining example of what tolerance looks like when it comes to moderating forums and the people who comment there.
My nature is to challenge prevaling and popular thoughts on current issues. Not about mudslingings and ad homenim attacks or with subtle and slanderous suggestions implying something for the sake of appearing, um, "intellectual." I was hoping for honest and challenging debates. Instead of dealing with a Calvin like the character in the cartoon Calvin and Hobbes. So, who or what is Calvin? Well, Calvin is an impulsive, sometimes overly creative, imaginative, energetic, curious, intelligent, often selfish, rude, and a usually bad-tempered six-year-old (from the description in Wikipedia). Oooh, the irony of life.
I guess my expectation was a wee-bit too high knowing full well I'd be stepping into the Land of the Liberals mush. And if people wanted answers, I'd give it to them straight rather than dally around giving out non-answers, using the patented bob-and-weave responses, innuendos, and constant one liners all in the effort to appear to have a command of their intellectual faculties. Or come up with some psycho-babble nonsense with non-answers in the effort to appear like a certified psychologist. Or secretly have an ax to grind against me at a subconcious level over some challange I made 2 years ago when I requested that a deaf person to call me claiming he could use the phone without any problems. And the person was promptly cornered. That's when I learned that exaggerations and hyperboles is the name of the game. Sometimes.
Yet, I despise any form of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to discussions or debates. It's just like driving on the highway, you have your passive-aggressive driver who purposely drive slow for the express purpose to "pay back" and annoy drivers behind them and claim innocence saying that the driving was within the speed limit. But we know better, don't we? Or maybe more accurately it's like being a victim in a drive by shooting tossing out vicious one liners for no apparent rhyme or reason. Although some cried "Uncle!" and ran to the moderators because somebody got offended over something so minor. So, "Run to Mommy" must be the answer nowadays.
Yet, most participants are able to suck it up and go with the flow. And that's good. But apparently there were a few people who simply do not have the capacity to handle strongly opinionated comments and must resort to the lowly common denominator of one liner attacks. But for some strange reasons moderators of AD thought I provoked, enticed, or trolled for responses even though questions I had were legitimate and my opinions were genuine. Nice to hear those "facts." Apparently AD moderators never met me and somehow they've gotten their sensibilities challenged. I'm sure AD is nice. No doubts. Lots of subjects to peruse and participate in. I'll just wait until my ban is up tomorrow based on their "facts" about what I did. A measley one day ban with two others who got banned as well. Nothing to worry about. It'll be fun once I'm in again. A little experiment of mine that began a few months back to last about 6 months to show just how prevalent liberal thinkings are. They don't call me Kokonut Pundit for nothing.
If you don't know by now Obama is recognized as the most liberal Senator out there where he voted 97% of the time with Democrats in Congress and during his campaigning helped by his Chicago thugs (the Clintons brought up "thugs" first when Hillary was still in contention for the race) he made a promise once he get into the White House. He broke two promisesso far and that's even before he set foot inside the Oval Office.
The first broken promise was the one where the candidate of "change" was going to bring a new tone to Washington. This one has been broken by Obama's choice for Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel. Representative Emanuel (D- Illinois) is a hard core, far left, liberal as well as being an old Clinton hack. Not only that, but Emanuel is not a "new tone" kind of guy but is a Pit bull of epic proportions. The parallel would have been McCain claiming a new tone but picking Karl Rove as his Chief of Staff.
The second one was that Obama promised to not let lobbyists have a place in his new administration. He sure looks raring to go and give these lobbyists jobs like never before.
Despite campaign trail promises that special interests wouldn’t be a part of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama’s has sent signals to the lobbyists that they can get jobs with him.
...the overall message to the lobbying community appears to run counter to the Democratic senator’s campaign promise to keep special interest advocates at arms length.
With Obama's record of hardly ever reaching across the aisle, don't expect him do the same once he sets foot in the White House for the next four years. Just as don't expect the new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, to be that open minded when he prefered to use a steak knife to point out to Clinton's enemies on a piece of paper.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: He is [a] good old-fashioned Chicago thug, just like Obama is a good old-fashioned Chicago thug. On the night of the Clinton election, Rahm Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign -- Rahm Emanuel grabbed a steak knife and he began rattling off a list of betrayers, and as he listed their names, he shouted, ‘Dead! Dead! Dead!’ And he plunged the steak knife into the table after every name. This is not a bunch of people that are going to [govern from the center] --
And Obama wants Rahm to be Chief of Staff?
Obama. A man who wears an empty suit and says empty promises but sure has a lotta strings on him right now who thinks government is the answer by extending more control over the people. But according to a Rassmussen poll last month most people agree with Reagan's sentiment in his first inaugural address that "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
This would be the most moronic suggestion of the day. Obama zealots are suggesting a new National holiday called "Obama Day" or something to that effect even before he has done anything in office. In fact, in North Korea there is a holiday to celebrate the current leader KimJong Il's birthday which is one of the country's most important holidays.
Thousands of people danced and brought flowers in North Korea's capital Friday to celebrate the 65th birthday of "dear leader" Kim Jong Il..
Besides, we already have a National holiday called "President Day" which falls on February 18. There is no need for an "Obama Day" holiday. It'd be one of the most idiotic suggestion of the century.
Just unreal how people celebrate the Obamesiah's win or their expectation from "The One" on how he could ease the sufferings of his supporters.
At least five people were arrested across the city after Barack Obama's rally in Grant Park, including a woman who slapped a Chicago police officer, saying police couldn't arrest her anymore, prosecutors said today.
Most of the others celebrated the historic occasion with gunfire.
Celita Hart, 19, stood silently in court today when she appeared for a bond hearing. Prosecutors said Hart, who is black, yelled " 'White [expletive], [expletive] McCain -you white police can't do nothing anymore.'" With that, she reached through the window of a squad car and slapped a white male officer in the face, according to Assistant State's Atty. Lorraine Scaduto.
Gunfire? In a populated area? Shooting in the sky I would surmise? You know gunfire in the air in the past have killed people when bullets came down killing a little girl or boy or somebody else. Anybody who do that sort of thing are morons.
Of course, people expect alot from the Obamesiah thinking he'll pay for their gas and pay off their mortgages, and who knows what else. Remember a bunch of angry Obama supportersdemanding that they get paid for their work with Obama after he won the White House? And that was only two days after he won the election! Imagine when they have to wait for the Obamesiah thinking he made a promise on forking them over some free government, tax-payer supported money. They'll be so mad and disillusion I'm sure they'll start firing their guns in the air in anger that they've been duped.
Perhaps the concept called "hard work" or "an honest day's work for an honest pay" may come off a bit foreign for some of these people expecting the Obamesiah to somehow levitate money from the U.S. Treasury and give it to them instead?
Only time will tell and we probably won't have to wait that long to find out.
Obama to set up a draft-like bill requiring 13 to 25 year olds to perform community service. Yes, REQUIRE.
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
So for each kid going through middle and high school will have to perform a total of 350 hours of community service over seven years (grades 6 - 12). Plus, if they decide to go to college they must perform an additional 400 hours of service for the four years they are in college. Or if you're a typical Gallaudet University student average length of stay would be 6 years which means Gallaudet University students MUST perform 600 hours of community service.
Now, let's look at the court system on how they punish offenders by sending them to do community work as a punishment.
Interesting. With an Obama administration he is going to force middle, high and college school kids to perform community service much like a judge who orders an offender many hours of community service. Also, where will the Obama administration get the money to run these programs which will rival that of our national defense budget that runs around $600 billion dollars a year. Where will the money come from? Why, from you guys. The middle class people who will see a tax increase when Obama promised there wouldn't be a tax increase on 95% of the working class.
You see, it's patriotric to pay higher taxes and it is also patriotic when the government basically drafts 13 to 25 year olds and force them to do required community service.
What will happen if one refuses to do community service as a requirement in school? Get punished by a judge and perform more community service?
Like I said and I will keep repeating this, this is just the beginning of what socialist and Marxist ideals are all about.
UPDATE: Obama also when he suggested this new youth program a few months back that he promised to boost the size of the military. With the new this program of Obama's where will he get the extra money? From you! The middle class people who will see a rise in taxes on their income.
UPDATE III: Obama forgot to remove "require" in one of his Change.gov website on service requirement,
Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.
Heck, I'd say that those that get their SSI do 100, 200 or even 500 hours of community service as an abled body person as part of the agreement in order to receive welfare help. Picking up trash might be a good start for some people.
UPDATE IV: Jeepers! Even my old high school, Berkley High, in a math tutoring forum did one person go off tangent and talked about how community requirement should be forced, er, required of students to do their community service as a "duty" and as part of their graduation requirement,
What I don't understand is why there isn't a general community service requirement for all students. All students, not just those in AP and Honors classes, need to learn that they can and should contribute to the community. They should be doing this community service, not just to get into college, but because it is their responsibility as a citizen in this society. This community service requirement ideally could be met even by helping to clean up and maintain vegetation on campus. I've been rather surprised that very few students currently participate in ongoing efforts to make the school a pleasant and attractive place. The students seem to be in an entitlement mode - it's someone else's job to provide for them. A community service requirement could help teach them that they have responsibilities to help themselves and the community.
No doubt by now that person is an Obama Koolaid drinker.
22. What happened to the community service requirement?
Under the new curriculum, this has been replaced with the service learning requirement. Community service is no longer required for graduation under the new curriculum. Students following catalog requirements prior to 2007-08 will continue to follow the community service requirements.
Ok, Jim Jones, you have the floor. What flavor will they drink now?
* Completion of the community service requirement. Every undergraduate student entering Gallaudet University will be required to contribute 80 hours of approved community service. The level of community service required will be adjusted for transfer and readmitted students. For transfer and readmitted Required community students entering with: service prior to graduation: Senior standing 20 hours Junior standing 40 hours Sophomore standing 60 hours Freshman standing 80 hours
Remember, it said "approved community service" and so it's like they didn't have much say on choosing. It's funny, you pay Gallaudet University the tuitions and fees and they say you must perform community service as a graduation requirement like picking up trash and do other unpaid work that a student actually had pay to get to learn about academics of their choice. I wonder why Gallaudet University dropped that requirement just last year?
